MOOT PROBLEMS Problem No 1. Union of Indiva is a Democratic country. Democratic Reformers Association iS 2 group of certain Professionals working in this country which has large network throughout the country. In this Association many Doctors, Lawyers, Cine Artists, Engineers, Writers are working together for social cause and social problems. TheY have framed WhatsApp groups and Facebook Communities and other social media groups through which they share thoughts and different initiatives taken by their group. People from different places have joined their group. There are different kinds of discussions on the group. The office bearers of the Association always request other members to add people of different communities in the said Association, Members meet with each other and post discussions on WhatsApp and other Social media group about the decisions taken by the government which includes giving reservations and curtailing the reservations for certain communities. The discussion started aggressive arguments about the government and many members expressed their critical views about the government. Few people who were the members of the existing Ruling party protested against this on WhatsApp group and other Social media group. Furious arguments were shared on WhatsApp group and other social media group. Some people brought these arguments to the notice of Ruling party members and thus it reached up to some of the ministers. An urgent cabinet meeting was called and a resolution was passed for banning these kinds of activities in the country. Certain Police complaints were made against the members of the Democratic Refirmers Association. Some members of this group were arrested by the police stating that they are disseminating false information about the government and its policies with the aim of instigating people against the government. There were also violent protests against the resolution by the opposition party. Members found to have propagated such information were charged under section 124-A of Indian Penal Code. Their Anticipatory Bail Applications were rejected by Trial Court and High Court. The Home Ministry of the country passed order in exercise of the powers conferred by the Information Technology Act, which talks about Monitoring and Decryption of Information. The Government also authorized its Security and Intelligence Agencies for the purpose of interception; monitoring and decryption of any information generated, transmitted, received of stored in any computer resources. The Democratic Reformers Association argued that it is the ultimate assault on fundamental rights and the right to privacy. This kind of order is violation of right to privacy which is a fundamental right. In this background, Democratic Reformers Association has filed a petition by challenging the constitutional validity of the order passed by the Home Ministry of India, Section 124-A of Indian Penal Code, and against the order of rejection of bail applications before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Indiva Note - All the Participants have to prepare the arguments from both the sides.2. Problem No varmapur is 4 State Dhi tual Neethisthan 'S 2 State in the Indian Union. The Capital of the spiri big city P2VINg tolal population of 1,50,00,000. Acharya Sukh Dev baat a fe the figure: ma Choreographer, philanthropist and educator. He clai id a miracle rencarration of Stee Baba of Bholar who was considered a god a” nd Muslim wont ease teachings were an eclectic blend of Hindu, Christian 60,000 followers oot han tho died in 1980. In the capital city there are nearly 45: ‘or the Acharya goukh Dev. At present there are 12,000 mandirs (temples) for ine rya's devotees, ‘out of which 10,043 mandirs are located in Dharmap! _ wt fin eae late 1990s there was a movement led by an atheist Se yeled ationalists against the activities of Acharya Sukh Dev. Accusations 0 peas! Acharya include everything from sexual abuse, money laundering. raya "0 Performance of service projects, to murder. In 2008, a TV Channel Controlle fits Indian Rationalists aired a documentary tiled. The secret of Acharya, as part 0 al Sees “The India Uncovered”. One central theme of the documentary Was Sex, abuse allegations against Acharya. The documentary interviewed one Rithulal together with one Maheshwar who Had devoted 25 years of his life since 1974 to the movement of Acharya and alleged abuse by Acharya. Another documentary, seduced By Acharya carried interviews of abuse allegations. The show also presented allegations from Indian writer Babu Permchand, who campaigned against Acharya for oa 2 years. He claimed that Acharya was “not just a fraud, but a dangerous sexual abuser This Acharya and his followers consistently denied the charges of misconduct, which were never proved. Devotees generally responded to allegations, such as those of sexual misconduct, with outright denial, asserting that former followers were vindictive and not reputable-fickle people who one day sang Acharaya's praises and then turned against him when some wish of their was not fulfilled. However Indian Ralionalists started to propagate the allegations against Acharya through public Meetings. The movement led to frequent clashes between the followers of Acharys and Indian Rationalists. In the year 2011 itself there were 1118 reported incidents of such clash. On 10-10-2012 Acharya died in a car accident. On 11-10-2012 the followers of Acharya had called for a bandh in the capital city to mourn the death of Acharya Sukh Dev. On 11-10-2012 one Sumali, who is a fourth year LL.B. student entered the following comments in her page in the Face Book. “People like Acharya ‘Sukh Dev are born and die daily and one should not observe a bandh for that, “Respect is earned, not given and definitely not forced. Today Dharmapur shuts down due to fear and not due to respect.” On 12-10-2012 around 5.p.m. police arrested Sumali on the basis of a complaint filed by one Jan Dev stating that the Face Book comment of Sumali is 2 criminal offence under section 505 of Indian Penal Code read with section 66A of Information Technology Act, 2000. On 13-10-2012 around 4.30 p.m. she was produced before the Magistrate. In the First Informaton Report it is stated that her action is a criminal offence under secton 505 of the indian Penal Code read with section 66A of Information Technology Act, 2000. Magistrate granted bail to herOn 1-11-2012 Sumai nan under led a pel c sthan un Section 482 of the Code of Cri dca naa 211- 2012 Sumail fi validity of secti 7 iminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the F.|.R- te ‘ed another petition under Article 226 of Constitution challenging 1X Violation of aon, O68 9 the Information Technology Act, 2000. On the grou Soe cle 14, Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21 of the Costituion. The Divs” 7 '¢ High Court heard at the petition both the petition together and dismiss 'e two petitions file by Sumali, through the Order dated 30-11-2012. According to the Court the section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 does not violate Article 14, Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21 of the Constitution. It is pointed out that she ca effectively defend the case before the trial Court. However on the basis of the application filed by Sumail under Article 134A of the Constitution the leave to file appeal under 133 of the Constitution was granted by the High Court. On 10-12-2012 ‘Sumail filed an appeal under Article 133 of the Constitution Challenging the decision of the Neethisthan High Court dated 30-11-2012 The following CONTENTIONS are raised by Sumali 1. Abuse of Process involved in the matter of the arrest of Sumali and filing of FIR 2. Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 Act violates Article 14, Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21 of the Constitution’ On the behalf of the State of Neethisthan All the Contentions are refuted and submitted that findings of High Court regarding the quashing of FIR could not be the subject-matter of the appeal under Article 133.Problem No 3. inoma An old man Ramaiah aged about 68 years, He is suffering with coeeacie disease. Ramaiah earned lot of properties both moveable and im ‘among with the @ssets of his own as well as with the income of his father rich those Properties one palatial building was earn with his own earning whieh worth 25,00,000. He had one son by name Praveen and one daug art name Prasanti, His only daughter is looked after him. So, Ramaiah exe ed a will with regard to that building infavour of his daughter Prasanti, oe 08-06 and he is died on 9-2-2007. As per the will Prasanti tries to aa Possession of that building, but Praveen objected to do that act. Pras try to tell him. But Praveen was not convinced, Hence Prasanti wants to file a suit for declaration and injuction basing 07 that will ISSUE- Whether plaintiff is entitle for declaration of title ship over the property and whether the daughter or plaintiff is entitle for relief of permanent injection or not ?Problem No 4, Si woe hee Vs Editor “Daily Mail", Mr. Harjeet Singh Sara is a clinical social high-class oreq ne Goncy department of a Private General hospital located in the equipped aig Of Pune city, Maharashtra, This “ONP General Hospital’ is well ee PPed and has all specialty and comprehensive supportive services like Aboratory, Diagnostic and Imaging, Ambulance Service and Intensive Care Unit. On 26th May 2000 at about 10 am. 16 year-old boy was rushed to the hospital by his neighbors following an apparent suicide attempt. The boy had consumed a large quantity of antidepressant medication and benzodiazepine, The neighbors immediately contacted his mother a ‘single parent’ Working in a reputed multinational company. His mother Smt. Ajita Mehta immediately reached the hospital at about 10.30 a.m. At the hospital, the mother met Sara, who tried to help her cope with the crisis. ‘Smt. Ajita Mehta insisted that she be allowed to be with her son during his emergency treatment. She had to be restrained by hospital staff when she tried to enter the room where her son was being treated. During the episode, the mother appeared to be anxious and worried and was losing temper very often. Everyone including her neighbors tried to calm her down and wait for the test reports and further course of treatment. In her fit of anger she was continuously blaming the boy's father, with whom she was engaged in a bitter custody battle. According {o the mother, the boy's father was responsible for the boy's emotional distress and he has never shouldered any responsibility in his upbringing. The mother was also critical of the boy's school counsellor who, the mother said, should have shared more information with her about her son's distress which probably would have helped her in seeking medical help. Unfortunately the boy did not survive and died in few hours. On 30th may 2000 while reading the newspaper * Daily Mail” Smt. Ajita Mehta came across an article on “Need and Importance of Child Counseling in cases of single Parenting’ She realized that the Article was written by a Clinical social worker Harjeet Singh. He had quoted several examples, with holding the real names and one of the examples was very close to her son's incident. With the example the name of the ONP Hospital was mentioned. On enquiry she found that Mr. Harjeet Singh is attached to several hospitals including ONP General Hospital and obviously had access to the hospital records. Her colleagues, friends, relatives were making phone calls for condolence but at the same time were mentioning about the newspaper article. They also advised her to keep control over her temperament and should go for yoga and meditation because she is not known for this, kind of behavior and were rather taken by surprise Mrs. Mehta had to resume her office immediately on 1st June as she had lot of assignments to complete and meet the deadlines. Her immediate superior called her in his office and asked about the article and about her son’s distress and was apprehensive if she could complete her work in time. Mrs. Mehta assured her that what was written in the news paper was not true to which her superior agreed and added that in past he had no complaints about her work and she is known as meticulous and hardworking employee. However he informed that herpromotion and salary increment which was due is time being delayed further for six months and her performance will be evaluated to be entitled for the promotion and inerease in salary and other benefits. During lunch time many of her colleagues discussed the same issue, which she found painful, mentally and emotionally exhausting, Smt. Alta ‘Mehta found everything unbearable and thought that at the time of medical crisis of their children every parent is bound to react in the ‘ similar manner. She filed a suit against the newspaper and the author of the article Mr. Harjeet Singh for defamation. In conjunction with her grievances, she requeste a copy of the hospital's medical record. ISSUE- 's the newspaper and Mr. Harjeet singh llable for paying damages to Smt. Mehta for defamation in public relations?Problem No § The APPL| RESPONDEANY (Indico) is a Pvt. Ltd. Co. incorporated in India. The 'T (Carco) is Detroit based US Co. The Go Used in Seen" of India issued a notification that manufacture and use of microchip the Govern at TV or any such invasive technology, only with the prior permission of ernment after det Ig the end use of such a device. THE CONTRACT The parties entered into an 4, which mentioned the ‘: of Won ont agreement in January 2014, whi fe ‘Scope ) regarding manufacture of software codes, involving a consideration R{USD 7 Million. A substantial pat of the work was required to be done at Pune, India, where Indico's Company was situated but installation, commissioning and approval was to be done at Detroit using Carco’s systems. Within about 10 days of signing of the Agreement, Carco added an additional SOW, after confirming of the Indico’s ability to deliver the Same. Indico confirmed that it was capable of performing and agreed to include the same for the same cost. THE DISPUTE Indico submitted preliminary details as per the agreement and Carco paid the first ‘wo instalments which was 30% of the total consideration. There was delay in complying with the 2nd milestone due to the additional SOW. The delayed ‘submission was not accepted by Carco which claimed that the submissions were not as per specifications. After several exchange of communications between the parties and modifications to submissions by Indico, Carco issued a termination letter to Indico within 10 days of submission of the 2nd milestone and stopped further payments. Carco raised a claim for refund of monies already paid by it, on the ground that Indico had misrepresented its ability to deliver requirements under SOW. THE SUIT Indico has, thereby, filed the instant suit for recovery of moniesProblem No 6. MT Sean Mr. Rajesh Singh, Mr. Manik Jai, Ms. Shruti Kapoor, Mr Sandeep. Borowned Jagr anna and Mr. S. Shaikh were the members of governing body enaiman of the _ Public Charitable Trust (JPCT), Mr. Ashok Shah was the Executive Secrays Ut, Mr. Rajesh Singh was a trustee by virtue of his post as : schools, hostele 21%, AS Per its objectives JPCT was engaged in running of variou: commercial coy and Nospitals. JPCT also owned vast agricultural land and ' Property was ‘omplexes which formed part of the income of the Trust. Since the Trust trusteeg sha cbread in seven different places situated in three different districts, the Ashok Shan edt’ responsibilty of managing various units called “Station”. Mr. had an er Arse also responsible as manager of one such Unit at Devnagar which agriculturg (Sh Medium school, a vernacular language school, dispensary, Students 72nd residential quarters, commercial complex and a hostel for 300 Studyine jghere Was regular income at this station in the form of fees of students inmates cn Sch091, agricultural produce, patients availing dispensary facilities, hostel ee ie hey rent of workers’ quarters and commercial complex. The Governing body On one ay ng two groups - Mr. Ashok Shah, Mr. Karan Khanna and Mr. S. Shaikh oiher aa Pret Mr. Manik Jain, Ms. Shruti Kapoor and Mr. Sandeep Borse on the latter was headed by Mr. Manik Jain. Group of Mr. Manik Jain was trying hard to get into power and therefore they wanted to remove Mr. Ashok Shah as Chairman of the trust. To achieve their Purpose, they incited Ms. Shruti Kapoor to rake allegations of sexual harassment against Mr. Ashok Shah. On the other hand, Mr. Ashok Shah and group came up with a plan where they made Mr. Ashok Shah agree to write a suicide note alleging Mr. Manik Jain and group responsible for his Sticide. They put up a drama of suicide thus fixing Mr. Manik Jain and group on charges of abetment to commit suicide. The Trust held an agricultural land near an uPcoming Special Economic Zone (SEZ) and therefore the land got attention of many builders. Mr. Manik Jain, Ms. Shruti Kapoor and 2 Mr. Sandeep Borse wanted {0 sell the Trust land at the prevailing market price but Mr. Ashok Shah objected to the same and as a result the sale did not materialize. Thirty people viz. workers and residents of Devnagar Station reported to the Executive Secretary Mr. Rajesh Singh On 10th October 2011 that Mr. Ashok Shah as a manager of the station was engaged in embezzlement of funds. They pointed out that he had taken illegal Gratification from the parents to get their children admitted in schools and hostels. He had sold away chunk of agricultural produce and had not submitted the amount to Trust's fund. Similarly, they pointed out that Mr. Ashok Shah had regularly collected house rent and rent from the tenants of commercial complex and had not remitted the amount to Trust's treasury. This News was flashed widely in local media. After receiving the written complaint, the Executive Secretary brought the matter to the notice of the Chairman Mr. Ashok Shah and informed him that since he is having a written complaint against him, he will have to bring the matter in front of Governing body to be held on 12th November 2011. He further requested Mr. Ashok Shah to clear the matter before the meeting so that his image was not tarnished. All Members of Governing Body unanimously supported Mr. Ashok Shah and issued a letter to Mr. Rajesh Singh condemning the allegations and supporting Mr. Ashok Shah. On Sth November 2011, Mr. Ashok Shah wrote a letter and kept the same in his office drawer. The letter contained the statement that in case of his death, Mr.Manik Jain, Ms. Shruti Kapoor, Mr. Sandeep Borse should be held responsible for is death, According to the letter, they had been the mastermind behind the oMplaint and done with sole intention to defame him. Early morning on 12th ‘vember 2011, Mr. Ashok Shah was found hanging from the roof in the rear room Of his house with its main door not latched. On the basis of Preliminary investigation, Police prima facie assumed that he had committed suicide. Based on the note found Anis office drawer police filed a charge sheet against Mr. Manik Jain, Mr. Sandeep Orse, Ms. Shruti Kapoor. They were alleged to havecommitted an offence u/s, 306 £24 with Sec. 34 of IPC. The Trial Court convicted Mr. Manik Jain, Ms. Shruti Kapoor and Mr. Sandeep Borse, Being aggrieved by the conviction, they preferred 8 appeal to the High Court of Gujarat.